What Steve and Ryan Knew and When They Knew It
John Nielsen-Gammon wrote on December 8 to Jeff Id and Steve McIntyre
From: John Nielsen-Gammon
Subject: reviews and reviewers
Date: December 8, 2010 10:59:20 AM CST
To: Jeff Id, Steve McIntyreJeff & Steve (with copies to AMS publications leadership) -
What I told you about making reviews publicly available is correct. There's no AMS policy against, nor any formal objection to, an author making the contents of anonymous reviews and responses public. If a reviewer provides his or her name, or if there is other information that makes it possible to discern the identity of the reviewer, such information should be redacted unless the reviewer grants permission.
In the context of this, I would think that publishing an anonymous review and speculating as to the identity of the reviewer would be unethical. The author, if making the review public, has a duty to preserve the anonymity of the reviewer.
More at the link, but given that John is a fairly measured person, this is a rocket you know where. As Eli said note the date.
UPDATE: Which turns out to be even more important than Eli thought, because, as Stoat points out, Ryan O'Donnell has written
I have known that Eric was, indeed, Reviewer A since early December. I knew this because I asked him. When I asked, I promised that I would keep the information in confidence... However, when someone makes a suggestion during review that we take and then later attempts to use that very same suggestion to disparage our paper, my obligation to keep my mouth shut ends.Taken together with John N-G's email, the bunnies just know the game was afoot as soon as Eric Steig acknowledged he was Reviewer A, and that Steve and Jeff were shopping around for a blessing (which they did not get). It also strongly implies that Ryan O'Donnell pretty much immediately told McIntyre and Id. This requires another blogger ethics panel. Eli is sure that Lucia will get right to it given her strong interest in the matter.
Posts
80 comments:
Well, well. Dr. Nielsen-Gammon and the good bunny really have thrown a cat amongst the pigeons now.
The son of a sailor suggests you read the Honor Concept of the United States Military Academy.
Most professional associations have a code of ethics. Unfortunately when non-professionals get involved, some of these non-professionals don't adopt them. Nor do they appear to have any ethical code of their own.
How does one get from that JN-G rocket from this (my emphasis)?
-----------------------------
"A brief history of knowledge about Antarctic temperatures
Filed under: Arctic and Antarctic Climate Science skeptics — eric @ 9 December 2010
...
2010
Ryan O’Donnell: Our paper in the Journal of Climate shows a somewhat better way to look at the same data. Antarctica is warming a bit more in summer, and a bit less in winter in the Ross Sea region. In fall it is cooling a bit more too, and so the overall trends are smaller. Still, West Antarctica is definitely warming significantly, as Steig et al. found. That’s interesting.
Eric Steig: Nice paper Ryan. Thanks for sending along a pre-print.
Steve McIntyre: Hey, we got published in the Journal of Climate! Another paper showing that the “team” made up the data again! (Sotto voce): Ryan says it it is warming a bit more in summer, and a bit less in winter in the Ross Sea region. In fall it is cooling a bit more. Otherwise we get the same results, though the magnitude of the trends is smaller. But West Antarctica is still warming significantly. But I really don’t care. The peer review process is broken, which is why.. umm…our paper was published in the leading climate journal.
Liberal Media: That paper wasn’t published in Nature, so we’re not very interested.
Conservative Media: Antarctica is cooling. Global warming is a fraud.
Public: zzzZZZzzz
————-
P.S. For those actually interested, yes, I’ll have more to say about O’Donnell et al., but overall, I like it.–eric"
-----------------------------
Presumably because they couldn't stomach this?
-----------------------------
"West Antarctica: still warming
Filed under: Arctic and Antarctic Climate Science Instrumental Record Reporting on climate skeptics — eric @ 1 February 2011
...
In summary, even if their results are taken at face value, O’Donnell et al. 2010 doesn’t change any of the conclusions reached in Steig et al. In West Antarctica where there is disagreement, Steig et al, 2009 is in better agreement with independent data, and O’Donnell et al.’s results appear to be adversely affected by using procedures known to underestimate trends. Thus while their results may represent an improved estimate for the trends in data rich regions — East Antarctica and the Peninsula — it is virtually certain that they are an underestimate for West Antarctica. This probably means going back to the drawing board to write up another paper, taking into account those suggestions of O’Donnell et al. that are valid, but hopefully avoiding their mistakes."
-----------------------------
Deary me. Some people are just too tetchy by half.
Cymraeg llygoden
Had the same thought myself before reading this, which I posted at Bart's. None of this adds up. It seemed to me that Steig and O'Donnell could have been set for a collaboration a while back.
It's the poison of Iago McIntyre doing it's work. It's a shame it got to Othello O'Donnell.
Great fun, this. It's like a Mobius of petard hoisting. All are sullied in the end when watching the sport close up.
Sadly if you step away and see where the boys are playing it's in the mire. Sunlight and disinfectant in heavy doses should be applied to all. One party believes in a dose of sunlight and tends to subscribe to the notion exuberantly [the other less so, ES].
It's the poison of Iago McIntyre doing its work. It's a shame it got to Othello O'Donnell.
Eli, did Ryan know? Look at who the email was sent to.
When did RO'D ask ES if he was Reviewer A?
Before or after 8 December?
Cymraeg llygoden
@ Cymraeg llygoden
On Dec. 4th, McI was suggesting Reviewer A was Steig, in public at CA, and then later on made sure everyone knew that it was O'Donnell's theory, not his. There was still speculation about the identity of Reviewer A going on at CA on Dec. 11th.
Thanks J Bowers.
Good to get that bit straight.
I think that it's reprehensible enough to be discussing reviewer identity in terms of virtual certainty whether they actually knew or not for certain between Dec 4th and 11th.
In the great scheme of ensuing events it probably doesn't matter when exactly RO'D approached ES to confirm Reviewer A's identity, but it would be nice to know the exact timeline in view of JN-G's e-mail reply. It would be nice to know when SMcI and JId wrote to JN-G, too.
Cymraeg llygoden
On the December 1, 2010 at 11:47 pm, on The Air Vent, Ryan O:
I think I know who the reviewer was, and I honestly don’t think that Mann had a majority of the involvement. Perhaps as an advisor, or perhaps adding some supplementary comments . . . but I do not believe he was the primary author of the review.
On all my work, my name affirms my Honor.
@ Willard, he still doesn't name Steig there, though. Look at the very first words in that comment of his, and block all thoughts of the toxic climate debate from your mind.
On December 3, 2010 at 12:12 am, on The Air Vent, Ryan O:
The key area Eric is talking about (also pointed out by one of the reviewers ;) ) affects the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers.
The whole thread provides an interesting read, if only for the very subtle nuances provided to the words to refute, to rebut and to repudiate.
On all my work, my name affirms my Honor.
Well, the smiley after "reviewers" in #139 (Dec 3rd) by RO'D (in willard's link) is probably saying something. Isn't it? And that would tie in with J Bowers' point about Dec 4th over at CA. Wouldn't it?
I can't help thinking that Broccoli at JoC should issue some sort of statement about these events and what repercussions, if any, he sees will result.
IMHO, it's a shame that what ES himself says is a worthwhile addition to the science is possibly being overlooked by some.
Cymraeg llygoden
Neven said...
It's the poison of Iago McIntyre doing its work. It's a shame it got to Othello O'Donnell.
The symptoms seem oddly familiar...was it in the water at Lisbon, too?
- Adam R.
It must have been late. It's he Honor Concept of the United States Naval Academy. Anyway, RO'D supposedly once had it drilled into him.
@Cymraeg llygoden - From the little I've read it doesn't seem that the O'D and co authors had much interest in making an 'addition to the science'. Their behaviour suggests they were trying to play a game of one-upmanship, and spat the dummy when they thought they'd 'failed' (not aware that they'd done a more than passable job).
err..best clarify that last sentence: a more than passable job of the paper, not the one-upmanship.
My last comment went down to the spam filter. Here is another one, worded differently:
***
On December 3th, 2010 at 12:12 am, at The Air Vent, Ryan O:
In terms of Eric’s sea ice hypothesis (which was a pervasive sub-theme for one of the reviews ;) ), this difference could prove to be important, as the increasing amount of sea ice in the Ross Sea is somewhat at odds with the S09 pattern of warming, which shows a maximum on Ross. In terms of glaciology, the difference is much less because the glaciers Eric is concerned with are not located on Ross.
[...]
The key area Eric is talking about (also pointed out by one of the reviewers ;) ) affects the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers.
The whole thread is worth the read. On that very post, there is a "symptom" attributed to someone named "Eric" that merits due diligence.
There is also a very interesting discussion on the nuances between the verbs to refute, to rebut, and to repudiate.
On all my work, my name affirms my Honor.
PS: Eli teached me how to be pedagogical, J. Bowers. Wink wink.
In case this comment is still gobbled up by the spam filter:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3216471894/wink-wink
Word verification: dudgedm
Sou, see my emphasised text in my first post above and this from the West Antarctica: still warming:
"As one would expect of a peer-reviewed paper, those obviously unsupportable claims found in the original blog posts are absent, and in my view O’Donnell et al. is a perfectly acceptable addition to the literature. O’Donnell et al. suggest several improvements to the methodology we used, most of which I agree with in principle."
I don't think ES's initial thoughts could be clearer. Granted, ES may now be inclined to change his mind, and he has opined on the paper's problems as he sees.
On the "oneupmanship": I'd agree with you.
Cymraeg llygoden
Spam filter seems to be working overtime today boss!
Cymraeg llygoden
McIntyre, O'Donnell and Condon.
Please show us all your emails pertaining to the paper that were written and received between when it was first accepted for review and when the final version was accepted for review. You had no problem making the reviewers' comments public, now you please make all your private commentary public. You know, to be open and transparent and to affirm your Honor.
The authors of the O'Donnell paper also owe Steig and the Journal of Climate and Nielsen-Gammon a public apology.
You guys have just shot yourselves in the foot , big time, and are now considered (for the umpteenth time) to be damaged goods. Good luck finding a reputable journal to publish in Ryan O, or someone to review your paper-- you clearly cannot be trusted.
Freed the spam.
Horatio would like to write a little ditty about this (maybe), but is having a bit of trouble following who said/omitted/suggested/"apologized"/corrected/edited/snipped/etc what when why and how (and where).
Horatio has a short attention span and just wants the gist. Doesn't want to wade through endless blog posts and snippets of emails that may or may not give the whole story (or even a tenth of it)
Perhaps Horatio should ax the Interpreter of Interpretations for his Oracular take on it?? (as this really falls under his area of expertise)
I think Lazar at lucia's nailed it:
"Jumping on and humiliating a guy who was trying to protect his anonymity might seem a little harsh. But then I remembered the station dropout fiasco,
http://rankexploits.com/musing.....ters-meme/
where Anthony Watts and Joe d’Aleo published a document called “Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?”, wherein they explicitly accused NOAA scientists of removing station data in the full knowledge and with the deliberate intention of inducing a false warming bias, i.e. scientific fraud.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy......ption.html
When it became clear that the basis for that belief was bunk, Watts and d’Aleo edited the document, sent the fraud accusations into the memory hole, and issued no apology nor retraction. One might call this action “shameless”. One might reasonably think it to be more shameless than actions to protect anonymity that resulted in no harm, of reputations or otherwise, to any individual. So I wondered where Lucia’s cartoon of Watts and post titled “Watts the shameless” was. Because Lucia is a lukewarmer, impartial, non-tribalistic, I am sure that a juvenile post targetting Watts exists somewhere, and any failure to find such a thing is a failure on my part.
On the other hand, Steig is only a climate scientist, so who cares right?"
More from the Tribe
Jeff Id:
"Reader Boballab found this an entire day before it was supposed to be released. It’s a paper written byJoseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts for the Science and Public Policy Institute.
Many of us are familiar with the accusations made by D’Aleo and EM Smith regarding the systematic elimination of colder temperature stations. They claimed that there is specific intent to distort the temperature record to inflate the true temperatures today. Not that hard to believe considering what we’ve recently learned from Climategate and the IPCC, however this paper goes a step further. It’s a comprehensive report on the numerous flaws in the dataset, including surfacestations, data elimination and a variety of other issues.
The report is 111 pages long and to put it simply, it contains the single strongest worded accusations against climate science of anything I’ve read from qualified skeptics.
The report is handled on a single page with a summary for policymakers. I would encourage any (both) policymakers who stop by to consider that these claims are being made by qualified people with background and ability to understand the data and implications."
Ts asks Jeff:
"Do you still agree that the “strongest worded accusations” were justified, and that the “qualified people”, i. e. D’Aleo, Watts and Smith, really understood “the data and implications”?"
Jeff responds:
"I don’t think the report was witten with the proper tone. My reading of it with my trust of em’s work left an impression of something which is different from what is being claimed now. Perhaps the error was mine tho I need to look again at the report to be sure."
at lucia's:
Neven asks RomanN:
"So if Roman’s method is superior, shouldn’t he be calling out Anthony Watts on his misleading allegations accusing NOAA of fraud?"
RomanN responds:
"Why would I do that when I haven’t even looked at what Anthony did? What do you think I am , a propagandist like Tamino"
lucia:
"I think the issue of whether Anthony should apologize to party “A” is between Anthony and party “A”. This is my policy regarding any and all apologize that should be owed. If either Anthony or party “A” asked me privately, I might answer privately. Other than that, my position is: It’s not my business.
I haven’t demanded Jones or Mann apologize to McIntyre. I don’t run around asking one neighbor whose dog poops in another’s yard to apologize. Once again: Not my business."
William and the good bunny are not the only one thinking along those lines....from Bart's place:
"MapleLeaf Says:
February 10, 2011 at 17:59
McIntyre and JeffId would not have been asking john N-G for his opinion had they not had plans to print the reviewers’ comments and probably already did known who reviewer A was. IMHO, they were floating a balloon because they wanted to “out” ES and wanted to float a balloon and determine the risks of outing publishing the reviewers’ comments and possibly outing ES.
The fact that ES then wrote a blog post in which he made some criticisms of their paper is not an excuse to abandon all ethical obligations. And for the record, the peer-review review process continues after publication– that is why you want to try and get it right the first time, all people who publish understand that. Sadly that fact and reality is lost on O’Donnell et al., and ultimately the content of the paper lies with the authors.
So McIntyre and Id probably knew before 8 December that reviewer A was ES– the only way to know for sure is if they show us their emails. Another date of possible interest is that the paper was accepted for publication on 30 November 2010– so it seems that as soon as it was accepted O’Donnell were getting ready to go after ES…
They are paying games here, and I for one am not at all impressed, and I doubt very much that the Journal of Climate and Nielsen-Gammon are either."
Here's a little glimpse into the mind of Ryan O'Donnell, from before he went of his meds (from a personal email to me -- the one in reply to my telling him I was indeed reviewer A).
"Thank you for your candor, and I will not violate the confidence of the review process. ... I give my word that I will not quote from the reviews. I will only paraphrase."
Eric Steig
Thanks Eric. So he does seem to have known about the ethics. I don't regret having been optimistic, but that's disappointing. O'Donnell needs to figure out for himself who his real allies have been, because thus far some seem to have enabled a seemingly uncanny ability to throw himself under a bus, while others have sent work, kudos and genuine advice his way. Do the maths, Ryan. Unbelievably, even to myself, I'm still optimistic (a bit, but the well's been so poisoned...).
On the 8th of February 2011, 7:28 pm, at the Blackboard, Phil Clark [1]:
> Erm …. Direct quote from O’d himself:-
>> I have known that Eric was, indeed, Reviewer A since early December. I knew this because I asked him. When I asked, **I promised that I would keep the information in confidence,**
[Phil Clark's emphasis]
> So a confidence is only a confidence until the confidante decides otherwise. Yeah, got that. Open and shut, live and learn indeed. Anyhoo, pinheads and angels time.
***
On the very same Bat-channel and Bat-evening, that is the 8th of February 2011, but a bit later at 9:42 pm, Ryan O [2]:
> As clarity was requested, clarity will be provided. I did not explicitly tell Eric that I would keep the information about him being a reviewer confidential. However, he did request that I do so, and I fully intended to do so. Additionally, **I explicitly told him that I would keep the reviews confidential (which are now online), and I meant that to include his identity as a reviewer.**
[I emphasize to clarify the clarification.]
Ryan O explains his reason to be careful when angelically phrasing:
> The reason for the careful phrasing is that someone could claim after having examined the emails that I made no such promise to keep his identity secret. However (from the horse’s mouth), the lack of explicitly agreeing to Eric’s request was simply an oversight. My email left him with the correct impression that I had agreed not to disclose the information he provided.
Ryan O ackowledges Phil Clark's comment, signifies his disagreement, and then returns to his quarters, Ex Scientia Intertubes:
> Whether his subsequent actions justify my disclosure of the information is, of course, a question that different people are likely to answer differently. I feel I was justified. Phil obviously does not.
On all my work, my name affirms my Honor.
## References
[1] http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/in-moderation-at-rc-yes-no-whatever/comment-page-2/#comment-68546
[2] http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/in-moderation-at-rc-yes-no-whatever/comment-page-2/#comment-68579
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Academy
Capcha: igrappee
The third reference was there to clarify _Ex Scientia Intertubes_.
Okay, I backed a losing horse and did a Chamberlain. No skin off my nose at the end of the day.
"Ryan O said [at Air Vent]
December 1, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Seeing as I am a moron...."
You are the company you keep.
Willard is pissed. This is serious.
I have to say that this whole episode was extremely distasteful. Ryan O behaved in a way that makes one question his stability--certainly his judgment. I can say I won't be looking to him for any insight in the future. The McFraudit group...well, let's just say that they continue to disappoint but not surprise.
What sad, pathetic, ideologically blinkered clownshoes.
February 11th, 2011 at 8:48 am, at the Blackboard, RyanO:
> Willard’s [Eric's] quote is correct.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/in-moderation-at-rc-yes-no-whatever/comment-page-10/#comment-69115
The ellipsis is still unclear.
Ex Scientia Intertubes.
Sorry, had to post something positive and a bit of an anti-Morano moment: 2,500 scientists show support for EPA.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/scientists-statement-on-the-clean-air-act.pdf
And Willard, thanks.
Over at Stoat, John Nielsen-Gammon partly answers my question (being the ethics question he did not answer on his own blog):
"Announcing the identity of the anonymous reviewer was wrong in and of itself. The seriousness of the offense deepens to the extent that the author also reveals some of the content of the review. Revealing the identity of the reviewer while simultaneously publishing the complete content of the reviews makes this particular ethical violation as bad as possible."
2,500 scientists? That's using the Oregon Institute definition, isn't it?
-Adam R.
"2,500 scientists? That's using the Oregon Institute definition, isn't it?"
Let's have a look: PhD, PhD, PhD, MA (geographer), PhD, MA (energy engineer), MA (physicist), PhD...
Not so far, unlike the Oregon Petition's Geri Haliwell (aka Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls), Doctors Pearce, Honeycutt and Burns from MASH, and dead people.
Sorry, I should've said 4,500 scientists and health professionals.
http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/clean-air-act-letter.pdf
Ryan O'd has a new post up over at Tony's place, and while it starts off all apologetic-like, it ends in another blaze of accusations....
Hi Eli--
I frequently often miss some of your posts and there was no incoming ping to alert me, so I almost missed this question to me. Sorry for any delay in answering.
>It also strongly implies that Ryan O'Donnell pretty much >immediately told McIntyre and Id. This requires another blogger >ethics panel. Eli is sure that Lucia will get right to it given her >strong interest in the matter.
You were correct to guess that I would "get right to it", as I am interested.
I didn't know when Ryan told Jeff or SteveMc Steig was the reviewer. I do know Jeff and Steve both suspected Steig was the hostile reviewer way back in April because they both groused about reviews and speculated during a coffee break. I did not read the reveiws-- just listened to the speculation. So, this speculation began long before Steig told Ryan he was a reviewer and is not evidence of Ryan telling jeff or steve anything.
I did a little googling to discover whether the answer was already posted somewhere, but discovered that further googling was time consuming.
Once I figured out google was going to take all day, I sent an email (time stamp 10:08):
I could google for a quote, but it's faster to just ask. The bunny says this:
Taken together with John N-G's email, the bunnies just know the game was afoot as soon as Eric Steig acknowledged he was Reviewer A, and that Steve and Jeff were shopping around for a blessing (which they did not get). It also strongly implies that Ryan O'Donnell pretty much immediately told McIntyre and Id. This requires another blogger ethics panel. Eli is sure that Lucia will get right to it given her strong interest in the matter.
My reading of the CA and TAV article suggests RyanO did NOT immediately tell McIntyre and Id. Truth?
Lucia
Ryan's answer:
I did not. The bunny can speculate all he wants.
Jeff's answer:
I was not told. Nor did I care because in my very firm opinion it was a team review. Steig has claimed he personally wrote the reviews in their entirety though and I have no proof except that he uses similar wording to both himself and Mann from RC and makes the same mistakes as them both throughout HIS review. As I understand it team reviews are not publicly acknowledged without embarrassment so frankly on that point and from past experience, I simply don't believe him.
I have not yet received an answer from SteveM. It's been an hour and 59 minutes. He may be playing squash, buying groceries or something. But I thought you'd want this informatin STAT, so I thought it better not to wait.
You could ask him somewhere where he is likely to read the question. Of, if you link, maybe he'd see the incoming link and notice you had a question for him? If you don't know how to make your blog ping, I suggest you ask him at Climate Audit where he is likely to read your question.
Would you like me to post all this at my blog? Should I wait for SteveMc to answer?
Second review begins...
"O’Donnell et al. have substantially improved their manuscript and clarified a series of items that led to some confusion on my part (for example, my impression that they had detrended the satellite data). I appreciate the great amount of work that has gone into this manuscript, and the thorough documentation of the results. I also am convinced that the methods discussed are a substantive contribution to the literature and represent real improvements to the methods used in earlier work. I also think that main findings
of the manuscript – that Steig et al.’s overestimate mean Antarctic temperature trends, particularly in winter in the Ross Sea region – are likely to be correct."
Third Review ends...
"In summary, this manuscript needs to be revised again, and sent again to review, before it can be considered acceptable for publication in the Journal of Climate. I emphasize again that I think that it should be published eventually, because it definitey has the potential to be a solid and oft-cited contribution. I thus I hope that the authors are not too put off by the several rounds of review. I do not think the manuscript will require more than minor re-writing to address the above criticisms (though perhaps substantial re-calculating will be needed), and I look forward to seeing a revised version in the near future."
Wow, that's a really "hostile reviewer". What next, a recommendation to National Geographic? Is this an example of a "friendly reviewer"?:
"The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about."
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/01/letters-to-editor.html
Lucia, please, you have clearly not published, or if you have, you have been incredibly fortunate. Eric was not a hostile reviewer. If you want a hostile reviewer, look at what McIntyre did to Wahl and Amman-(I don't recall you jumping on them for that misconduct and abuse of power), or read some more of the comments in the link that JBowers provided. How you can alleged to be impartial on this is beyond me and others. Your double standard is embarrassing.
Lucia "I did not read the reveiws-- just listened to the speculation."
Are you now too an interpreter of interpretations and speculations?
Eric was a very tough but professional reviewer, now you all need to grow up and grow thicker skins. Even though Eric was tough and at times critical, that is not an excuse for O'Donnell et al. to break their word and subvert the peer-review process-- O'Donnell et al. are not omniscient. But I'm sure their actions will get a free pass from you and your ilk...I'll be happy for you to prove me wrong and for you to call foul (no ifs or buts though).
I think John N-G summarizes it all very nicely for you:
"Announcing the identity of the anonymous reviewer was wrong in and of itself. The seriousness of the offense deepens to the extent that the author also reveals some of the content of the review. Revealing the identity of the reviewer while simultaneously publishing the complete content of the reviews makes this particular ethical violation as bad as possible."
Lucia, stop chumming and please stop trying to defend the indefensible actions by O'Donnell et al.
ML
Steve would never lie. Omit a bit, but never lie. Remember Yamal?
>>Lucia, please, you have clearly not published,
Wrong. I have published in physics of fluids, the international journal of multiphase flow, experiments in fluids and... let me think... j. fluids engineering. As lead author.
>Lucia "I did not read the reveiws-- just listened to the speculation."
At heartland, I did not read the reviews. But people speculated Steig was the reviewer. I drew no conclusions. But the fact that speculation occurred before anyone *knew* steig was the reviewer ought to affect our interpretation of
> Cymraeg llygoden 10/2/11 5:07 AM
> J Bowers said... @ Cymraeg llygoden
On Dec. 4th, McI was suggesting Reviewer A was Steig, in > public at CA,
This is no more evidence that Ryan told anyone anything in December than is the speculation I overheard in April.
As for the rest: I read this
>It also strongly implies that Ryan O'Donnell pretty much >immediately told McIntyre and Id. This requires another blogger >ethics panel. Eli is sure that Lucia will get right to it given her >strong interest in the matter.
I thought this was Eli inviting me to discover whether Ryan had told McI and Id steig was the reviewer immediately after learning this. I asked and learned he did not and told you.
Evidently, my providing this information upsets you and you now want to lecture me on whether Steig was a fair reviewer, ask me to engage numerous arguments-- most of which I am sure I have never advanced and some on topics I have never discuss at all.
My request to Eli still stands-- do you want me to post the results of my investigation into whether RyanO immediately revealed the identity of Steig as Reviewer A to JeffId or SteveMc? I thought you considered this bit of information important. I know Alex indicates I have more traffic than you, and our demographics differ. So, I would be very happy to post that for you if you would like the information aired.
As I said, either you have not published, or you have been incredibly lucky. I guess it is the latter then, apologies for my ignorance on the former, we work in different disciplines.
You were the claiming (or as you would put it 'lecturing') on how Eric was allegedly a hostile reviewer for goodness' sakes. Don't take offense when your allegation is refuted.
People should not get bogged down in details, what counts here is the libeling and slandering of Eric by multiple bloggers who sympathetic to the "skeptics", and that O'Donnell et al. behaved unprofessionally. Sad that some would stoop so low as to defend their bade behaviour isn't it Lucia.
What really upsets is when people like you appear to have double standards and engage in chumming, for what purpose God only knows (although web traffic does seem to be important to you). Are you going to apologize to Eric for the remarks that you made about him? Seems not, but perhaps yo will surprise us, and in a pleasant way. And please don't do what Ryan idid, i.e., apologize and then use that as an opportunity to make more accusations.
And I note with interest that you have not even tried, at Deltoid, to defend your questionable actions that Tim called you on.
ML
Lucia:
"...do you want me to post the results of my investigation into whether RyanO immediately revealed the identity of Steig as Reviewer A to JeffId or SteveMc?"
Eli:
"It also strongly implies that Ryan O'Donnell pretty much immediately told McIntyre and Id."
Spot the difference Lucia. So if it wasn't "immediate" O'Donnell is off the hook? I think not, you know damn well what the issue is here, either that or you are being deliberately obtuse. And do not forget the implications of those actions by O'Donnell et al. as outlined by John N-G.
A simple question to you-- have O'Donnell et al. behaved professionally and appropriately?
One wonders whether lucia is even aware of the discrepancy in how she treats steig's denials of receiving help with his reviews and ro's denials that he notified his fellow keystone cops of reviewer a's identity. The latter, of course, closes the book on the story- hence, her preordained reading and the end of her 'keen interest' in the matter- notwithstanding the curiousity of the inquiry to Nielsen-Gammon and the highly coincidental sequence of dates in the paper trail. Meanwhile, the former abet a standing dark and foreboding suspicion of those realclimate folks, however utterly devoid of evidentiary basis that house of cards is. Lucia would've made a great justice for the Mubarak regime (at least from its perspective).
Apparently Rabbet's blog posts aren't the only things that lucia frequently often sometimes misses. There's also the trivial matter of the few dozen handfuls of instances where the rank deceit and duplicity of McIntyre and his acolytes gets exposed for all to see. And these are the people, for want of a better word, in which trust is given by default??
Are there any honest honest brokers in the house?
Shorter Lucia: stenography = investigation. QED bitches!
For those that miss the reference (I'm assuming it was this:
http://xkcd.com/622/
Ps- Yes, that was another one.
--
Nothing on-topic because it's been said, excuses don't absolve responsibility.
I think the whole story is again a nothing. Hot air, blah, bullshit. The right cool reaction of Ryan would have been: bah, poor blog post. Dear Eric, if you have any complaints, please write a peer-reviewed paper or comment :p ;)
A nice journal paper is great. Now it can be discussed further. Maybe some people do not understand, that one paper is not (only) the end of the discussion. In contrary, it is the start of new even better one ;). And we all had annoying reviewers, esp. the third reviewer ;). But, nothing is worse than generic blah, blah reviews. Actually, Dr Steig put a lot of work into it. The authors also put a lot of sweat into it. And the editor decided to publish the paper, great! And did Dr Steig complain about this decision? NO!
well, the climate debate is so full of mistrust and idiotic overblown nothings.
a common, boring, Gutmensch field mouse
(Taps Lucia politely on the shoulder)
"Announcing the identity of the anonymous reviewer was wrong in and of itself. The seriousness of the offense deepens to the extent that the author also reveals some of the content of the review. Revealing the identity of the reviewer while simultaneously publishing the complete content of the reviews makes this particular ethical violation as bad as possible."
Comment?
Lucia -- "This is no more evidence that Ryan told anyone anything in December than is the speculation I overheard in April."
To be clear, I never said it was anything more than speculation. For more, read where I clearly make a stupendous mistake in the opening sentence:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/open-thread-feb-2011/#comment-10816
In J Bowers's comment in **Our Changing Climate** above, of note is Ryan O's sentence:
> However, once Eric puts on his RealClimate hat, his demeanor is something else entirely.
This sentence was in the first version of Ryan O's post, entitled **Steig's Duplicity**.
This sentence is still in the version I checked there:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-trick/
If we generalize this sentence, we obtain:
> However, once X puts on his Y hat, his demeanor is something else entirely.
Since speculation is dangerous, we won't speculate anything about the relevance of this formula to our Neverending Audit.
***
Ex Scientia Intertubes, on another channel, there is something to say about the truism that "Post" means post:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3240999760/post-means-post
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/in-moderation-at-rc-yes-no-whatever/#comment-69217
***
On all my work, my name affirms my Honor.
PS: Speaking of the importance of being earnestly cheerful, willard will remind Eli that "levity relieves tension, and the fear of death", and would tip his hat toward PDA for the quote.
A missed opportunity:
RomanM asks:
> How exactly was Ryan supposed to even address this sequence of events without releasing the name of the reviewer involved (whether Ryan was irritated or not)?
Steven Mosher answers:
> Well he could have tortured Steig for months on end by quizzing him about whether Steig agree with reviewer A.
> He could have used reviewer A’s words against Steig’s words and posts.
> He could have said ‘ Eric, take your complaint up with Reviewer A” or “Reviewer A, was such an idiot, what do you think Eric”
> That would have been a nice cruel game to play. Moshpit would have done such a thing.
> Then SteveMc and JeffId would have piled on and likewise critcized Reviewer A.
> And the “who is the mystery man” would have carried the story for a long ass time.
> That would have been fun as hell.
Source: http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/11/ryan-odonnell-responds/#comment-254618
RomanM:
> Good thinkin’. An opportunity missed.
Steven:
> Can you imagine the problems RC would have had deleting questions like “eric, do you agree with reviewer A?”
> The argument would have raged for a long time. About who reviewer A was.
> Actually if Ryan were to read the review to Revkin over the phone then revkin could do a paraphrase.. and then.. wow, just wow
What an opportunity missed!
One should never blog when upset.
On all my work, my name affirms my Honor.
It has been suggested elsewhere that, notwithstanding the email from John Nielsen-Gammon, there is no AMS policy that actually prohibits authors from disclosing the identities of reviewers, even if such disclosure accompanies copies of the review correspondence.
That would surprise me.
Does anyone have a reference to such a policy?
Pheew! Does this never end?
> Pheew! Does this never end?
No, David. You know why?
Click on my name to know why.
PS: Capcha is larked.
Hostile reviews? Try some of this lot.
http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/the_nothing_that_was_climategate
Minnie's Mum
willard --- Clicking on your name results in Not Found.
So now I think you don't really exist, except as a e-ghost doomed to ride the internet forever...
Liljegren @ 11:22: "now want to lecture me on whether Steig was a fair reviewer, ask me to engage numerous arguments-- most of which I am sure I have never advanced and some on topics I have never discuss at all."
Apparently, calling Steig the "Rod Blagojevich of climate science" on the Internet - with all its implications of corruption and malfeasance - doesn't at all impugn smears on Steig's honor and competency as a reviewer and climate scientist.
Fascinating. You're giving us great insight into what type of person you are, Liljegren.
-V
Yeah, why not, although the default is that what is known to one author is shared with all. Of course, being a very suspicious bunny Eli might think that having asked and been answered by John N-G they did not want to share the info in order to egg Ryan on, so Eli wants ALL of the emails, being a good auditor.
Lucia, you are hip deep on this one, stop digging.
Willard 11/2/11 5:26 PM,
It is very likely that the large number of links in your comment triggered the spam filter, when you submitted it to Lucia's Blackboard.
Revkin has highlighted a good comment by Louis A. Derry, a Cornell researcher and the editor of the journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems. He clarifies what is and what is not common in peer review. Nothing new there, but useful.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/on-peer-review-and-climate-progress/
Derry also addresses the question, why Steig's paper got more attention than O'Donnel's. To quote (emphasis added):
4. Some have questioned why Stieig 09 got “more” visibility than O’Donnell 10. The answer is simple. Steig had a “result,” O”Donnell had a technical criticism of methodology. As O’Donnell has repeatedly written he wasn’t trying to address the question of whether Antarctica had warmed, but only argue that Steig’s methodology was wrong. Whether Steig’s result is robust or not, it is often the case that papers with a “result” get more public visibility that technical discussions of statistical significance. If you accept O’Donnell’s work, it still sheds very limited light on the question of whether Antarctica is warming. It really only discusses how well a particular methodology that does try and address that question works.
Eli,
blogger ate a comment of mine; could you please do some digging? Revkin highligthed a good comment by Louis A. Derry, the editor of the journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems.
TIA
David,
Sometimes, Tumblr has hiccups. Please retry again. I just checked and it's fine.
***
AMac,
That's what I was thinking. At the time I reported the glitch here, I would never, for the life of me, believed that I am being moderated at Lucia's place.
Now, I'm not so sure anymore. Live and learn; at any rate, live. We'll see.
Did I just said a truism?
Thank you for your support,
Ex Scientia Intertubes,
w
bluegrue (http://bluegrue.wordpress.com/)
Revkin has highlighted a good comment by Louis A. Derry, a Cornell researcher and the editor of the journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems. He clarifies what is and what is not common in peer review. Nothing new there, but useful.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/on-peer-review-and-climate-progress/
Derry also addresses the question, why Steig's paper got more attention than O'Donnel's. To quote (emphasis added):
4. Some have questioned why Stieig 09 got “more” visibility than O’Donnell 10. The answer is simple. Steig had a “result,” O”Donnell had a technical criticism of methodology. As O’Donnell has repeatedly written he wasn’t trying to address the question of whether Antarctica had warmed, but only argue that Steig’s methodology was wrong. Whether Steig’s result is robust or not, it is often the case that papers with a “result” get more public visibility that technical discussions of statistical significance. If you accept O’Donnell’s work, it still sheds very limited light on the question of whether Antarctica is warming. It really only discusses how well a particular methodology that does try and address that question works.
willard --- That's twice Not Found.
The e-ghost evidence continues to mount...
Funny that I can see the linked site without difficulty, then!
David,
Surf on this:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/
This works for me.
Capcha: henth
willard --- That's indeed where I went before and it continues to display Not Found.
To be explict, this Not Found comes from the host; it is not a 404-Not Found from TCP/IP.
Still just a e-ghost, I fear.
Eli, O'Donnell says he did not know about that email, in a long comment about various things:
"...Lastly, to resolve any lingering questions about whether I was aware of Dr. Nielsen-Gammon's December 8th email to Jeff Id and Steve, the answer is no. I only became aware of the email after it was mentioned on Lucia's blog.
Posted by: Ryan O at February 14, 2011 02:50 PM
http://blogs.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/02/steig_this_is_not_complicated.html#c2047813
@ Holly Stick - another example of the paper's authors not taking any responsibility for each other's actions and prepared to hang their collaborators out to dry. McIntyre and Condon were obviously aware of it and a) did not inform O'Donnell (according to O'Donnell); and b) chose to be unethical in letting O'Donnell post the details.
So none of them have any regard for ethics.
At least two of them deliberately flouted the ethics. As for O'Donnell, he is either stupid (why did he think reviewers were kept anonymous?); and/or fibbing; and/or the authors don't communicate with each other; and/or the authors are happy to point their finger at each other saying 'it's all his fault'.
It would be surprising with all this finger-pointing if O'Donnell et al ever collaborated together again, let alone if any real scientists were ever again willing to work with them or review any of their material.
It's easy to picture McIntyre and Id egging him on to think the absolute worst while carefully not telling him anything that might give him pause.
People may be interested to learn that Jeff Condon, over at Bart's place, informs us as follows
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/revkin-steig-o%e2%80%99donnell-peer-review-solid-scientific-basics/#comment-11043
Earlier in the thread he first did not remember Nielsen-Gammon's e-mail, and then he 'nicely' side-steps the issue. Putting the reviews online is something he would not have done, apparently. But no answer on the John NG stuff.
Eli sums it up:
"... the default is that what is known to one author is shared with all. Of course, being a very suspicious bunny Eli might think that having asked and been answered by John N-G they did not want to share the info in order to egg Ryan on, so Eli wants ALL of the emails, being a good auditor."
Holly Stick sums it up:
"It's easy to picture McIntyre and Id egging him on to think the absolute worst while carefully not telling him anything that might give him pause."
_____________
"Just because you're on their side doesn't mean they're on your side." -- Teresa Nielsen Hayden
Post a Comment